"IST-IS In 1he.

Court' bfJLX\rr\i{\ol Qpptnjs . AbetAcosfrCtarj, 0f I£fes Q.uk^jiih_Jk&a»s __________ - - . •^r.a " "A I, fiaWTtn^" / courtop^d,n COUR-T-OFCRIMINALAPPEALS —%^t- wtzzms- „ JA- J ht Xoarf Of___Q.^^[_S„ _ A^ Acosta, clerk

D____'_b_|_l_e^.__5 Bn_£ far fcke^ CWollanf

loo km, TJC ^$454 4. # dmbki 6Y iW/ea' find Counsel 4 CoOfir Of piffeais/FM 0,£hc,f~ OF 7<>kai ^ (oQQCommm^ __.

J Dfif]^,7X.J^.^€^__ (%o(Ct (IWe, [in11: TO0_ jV(j_J_j!/L &7 fWhom, U 7S454

..__4_ &.

f

__.jAc_ aoiuu^r _Q.ou^O(_)in.k__ Cacseci,. ,....

-+-

• •i-

<

'

•

•^ i1 ! ft Tajoit Of^oitob ._ .__ \Aqx\(^U 01" rarf/es and _... ...

3uur>seJ ( ( i K^y> - ^Wenf- fegfi/dtnQ heed ftrg/jmenf qurnenf ^ • • I __ __.JuJb(^ j J -—- a .._ inokl r£ Pjufhorik'o n_ —• . ^ s Sic^.it^pJl_.of_ih^_C(Ml^ _. ^ '

\o __ Cyrounds ft^ l?eu»>^o ^ ^.

V. ™* ,()lgit (Y\Pnir QP &-J5 j «. -_ ™r> ~!-% AummamJ)LRfciumtot...?.. ~- -__. *s -^ --0 ... J&i9umer_r_, i '._..; ; _* —

..a. _Px#M.e,_r ^ ** — - m ^ ..jCer&JEu^oie^_^ *r m

— Li-nde^ OF fliAbor>i-<es acxisoo Y- .Yi'rQ<o.icL, ^ 0-S- 3ot /V.?7^) PI IL^C&s.. Penoi Cede--..J. 1.07 £Q) .QjUd)_._ -f3- a ten-minute recess, the trial court announced its finding that the enhancement paragraph was true and assessed punishment at sixteen years in prison, well within the range of punishment for the offense. The record is devoid of any statements by the trial court or other evidence indicating it failed to consider the full range of punishment or the evidence presented at the punishment hearing.

Because there is absolutely no showing of bias in the record, we presume the trial court's actions were correct. Brumit, 206 S.W.3d at 645. We overrule Knox's second issue.

We affirm the trial court's judgment.

/ Craig Stoddart/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE

Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) 140551F.U05

-6- first issue.

B. Sentencing Knox argues in his second issue that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him to prison "without articulating sufficient reason and for disregarding mitigation evidence presented by the defense." It is unclear whether this issue asserts the trial judge was biased or some other error in the sentencing process. From the argument and authorities cited in the brief, we consider the issue as raising a due process challenge to the sentence. However, Knox did not object to the sentence or otherwise bring this complaint to the attention of the trial court. We doubt Knox preserved this issue for review, however, we conclude the record shows no partiality by the trial court or that an improper sentence was imposed. See Brumit v. State, 206 S.W.3d 639, 644-45 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (reserving question whether objection in trial court is required to preserve error regarding partiality of the trial court or imposition of a predetermined sentence).

"Due process requires a neutral and detached hearing body or officer." Brumit, 206 S.W.3d at 645. "[A] trial court's arbitrary refusal to consider the entire range of punishment in a particular case violates due process." Ex Parte Brown, 158 S.W.3d 449, 456 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Brumit, 206 S.W.3d at 645. But "[ajbsent a clear showing of bias, a trial court's actions will be presumed to have been correct." Brumit, 206 S.W.3d at 645. Bias is not shown when (1) the trial court hears extensive evidence before assessing punishment, (2) the record contains explicit evidence that the trial court considered the full range of punishment, and (3) the trial court made no comments indicating consideration of less than the full range of punishment.

See id.; see also Brown, 158 S.W.3d at 456.

The record shows the trial court heard punishment evidence and the arguments of counsel. Appellant requested probation and the State requested a sentence of twenty years. After -5- Court of Appeals Mttty Btstrttt of Qtexaa at Dallas JUDGMENT

PATRICK ANTUAN KNOX, Appellant On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas No. 05-14-00551-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. 380-81027-2013.

Opinion delivered by Justice Stoddart.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Lang and Schenck participating.

Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 28th day of May, 2015.

-7-